Now we all probably agree that the rider was responsible (partially) because of his behavior. I can only assume the rider indeed broke the law by standing up, much like the person who threw the rock at Six Flags was partially responsible! Yet we see that Six Flags is on the hook for millions in damages…AND we see that many in the coaster community agree with the court action under the justification of partial liability. You see where this is going…?

Anyhow, Cypress Gardens best settle or they will risk another jury looking for payback from big, mean, and most importantly, rich amusement park. This is how our system works now! Some, amazingly, seem ok with it. Nobody is 100% responsible for their own actions if there is a big money-laden company available that can take even a tiny percentage of the blame.

As an aside, I am amazed that every ride does not currently have overhead restraints. It is simply not worth risking millions of dollars in liability. Any park that continues to run their coasters without a fail-proof means of preventing manipulated exiting is asking for it. Since the park is now responsible for the behaviors of criminals (which is what this kid apparently was) and their behaviors, it only stands to reason that all parks must immediately put overhead restraints (or similar) on all of their rides to prevent criminals for freeing themselves from the vehicles and risk injury to themselves and others. I mean, so many have lambasted Six Flags for not putting a barrier fence to stop the criminal rock throwing…so what is the difference here? Cypress Gardens is apparently still running this ride…knowing full well that somebody could wiggle out and fall off the train, or worse yet fall into the car behind them and injure others! They have no choice but to change the design to prevent the criminals from injuring themselves or others. Thank god, in this case, this kid did not land on another innocent rider.

The park has witnesses and the state inspectors cleared the ride. I think the case will be *thrown out* (I didn't intent for this to be a pun, it just came out that way).

It all boils down to whether the park made a reasonable effort to ensure guest safety. Personally, I think covering up the rocks and increasing patrols was reasonable. Come on, if you are hurt by another guest in a park, is it really the parks fault?

And how do we fix this Jeffrey? I wouldn't suppose you think we should throw out the entire system because of perceived abuse? Don't judges have the ability to throw out frivilous cases? Or does the law make it too difficult?

Are there people out there that take responsibility for themselves anymore?

Oh right.

When you admit a mistake suddenly you are sub-human, a liar, not fit for a job, disgraceful, etc. It takes a far bigger person to admit screwup.

The lawyer for this case can suck it.

~Rob Willi

I've thought about this! If King Jeffrey were in charge the world would be a better place, every park would have 2-3 more woodies, and there would be tort reform!

In civil tort cases such as this… The jury would have to decide who is 51% responsible or more. That person, or business would then be the party at fault. In a rare %50-%50 case we would split the difference. The party with 49% or less fault gets to run free with stern warning that King Jeffrey is looking out for them. I would allow non-monetary penalties for the 49% and less such as the warning signs I talked about earlier.

Something like "Six Flags has been found 3% responsible in an unfortunate rock throwing incident in which a thug human being threw a rock at a Six Flags Coaster. Six Flag’s failed to build a fence to prevent this thug from being a thug! The thug human being was found 97% responsible for the dastardly act!”

We could put this sign at he front gate and in front of every coaster at every park in the chain for a year! This way the public is educated. Six Flags gets a little deserved bad PR! But the truly guilty party pays the piper.

The problem with the current system is that 3% responsibility can add up to a lot of money for the rich company while tort lawyers does not even go after the 97% responsible thug, as there is no money to gain!

I'm also sure the people who have that view are mentally retarded (I'm sorry, that was rude, it's cognitively impaired) also.

The parents need to step back and realized they raised an idiot. Maybe they're idiots themselves, heck they probably are. They're asking for $15,000. That's not much, the park will probably settle for half that and call it good.

---

They're asking for $15,000. That's not much

---

That should cover parking, admission, food, drinks, minimal souvineers for a family of four at some of your larger parks.

Throw this one out of court. The park made every reasonable effort to keep this person safe, short of having an employee sit next to him and hold him down during the entire ride.

I wonder if major parks have worked with legal teams to explore all these issues ahead of time... It's the first thing I'd want to do if I were running a park.

As for tort reform, if one side loses they should have to pay all the costs of the winning side, and if theloser/accuser himself cant pay. then make the attorney pony up the cash and before trial make the accuser show proof that they can pay the bill if the lose..

Hold the people who are wrong responsbile and not just a company because they have deep pockets.

I think the parents should be sued for not teaching their kid how to properly ride.

I like Ohio's law that makes you fully responsible for disobeying park rules. That should be a law everywhere, in my opionion.

---

In addition to the boy's bodily injuries, the lawsuit states Junco and Cota experienced mental anguish and pain from witnessing their son's "traumatic injury."

---

Sooo, how much of this is mental anguish? C'mon... that is one of the most frivilous excuses to try & ween money from anyone. Mental anguish.

I don't care if it's 50 bucks... the park should fight back not because of the money, but because of the principle of the situation. The rider was at fault, and not the park's ride-operators, not the train, not the coaster, not even the park itself... there is a cetain amount of common-sense when riding rollercoasters, and at 13... you should have the mental capacity to realize these common sense rules (or the actual ones posted)... otherwise, you should be riding with a responsible adult who can ensure that you'll be strapped tight into the seat to prevent any possible chances of falling out.

**sigh**

America... the only country that'll sue over just about anything & everything... because it's all about the almighty dollar.

What is the available evidence that has to be protected, and is the reason for the suit being filed so quickly? What is the dangerous condition deficiency that a reasonable inspection would have revealed? How can you hold a weeklong bedside vigil AND consult with an attorney simultaneously?

I experience mental pain and anguish every time I read about one of these frivolous suits. Who can I sue?

As far as the countersuit goes, I say sue the family for $15,000 for the mental anguish that the ride operator is still suffering. Seeing such a young defenseless child; who never got the proper upbringing from his parents, to properly read the warning signs before getting on such a ride as Triple Hurricane, has taken a serious mental toll on the poor guy.He now can no longer perform his job, that he needs to feed his family. On these grounds alone, I say SUE THE FAMILY!

---

I have to believe the general public will see right through this as we already do.

---

The problem with the general public is that they don't really have the understanding of many things amusement park related. Too often do I read news stories where guests comment on how the ride was broken and they were "going to die" and that the park didn't do anything to help them and yadda-yadda-yadda. A recent story of the latest breakdown on Sheikra comes to mind.

*** This post was edited by TopThrillSheikra 3/7/2006 9:26:53 PM ***

Yes, it is ridiculous, but regardless of what we all think, this has some leeway in court, especially since theyre really not asking for a terribly high amount of money.

Now, I would never compare this at all to the case Six Flags is facing right now. The situation could have been easily avoided if some sort of fence was placed there, and just like it is common practice in parks to place fences near rides that come near the path, it should have been there. They definitely are going to lose that one, and maybe not rightly so, but that was sort of a stupid mistake to make about their ride in question.

Of course its all about the money these days, but if the kid really is disabled, and required some sort of hospitalization, I'd say somewhere in the vicinity of $15,000 is enough for hospital/ambulance/lawyer fees, which maybe they feel justified in having? I dont know. Well see what happens.

---

Cypress Gardens IS liable for something here. They operate rides that, although they are inherently safe, can cause injury and/or death.

---

And the parents and kid chose to ride anyway despite the warnings, and with knowledge that it could be dangerous. That act should itself force them to assume more liability for the situation, regardless of the kids reckless behaviour.

If the ride was operating properly, as it was, and the staff were doing their jobs, as they were, then there should be no case. Period.

Mind you, what do I know about U.S. or FL law? :-)

...for that matter, what does anybody know about U.S. and Florida laws anymore!

But I think enough credit can be given to all people in knowing that you DO NOT STAND UP ON A ROLLER COASTER!

---

Now, I would never compare this at all to the case Six Flags is facing right now. The situation could have been easily avoided if some sort of fence was placed there, and just like it is common practice in parks to place fences near rides that come near the path, it should have been there.

---

I could use this same argument to say that overhead retraints should have been there for Cypress Gardens. This situation could have been easily avoided with installation of overhead restaints or similar. I understand the difference in the details, my point is to get people thinking about their reasoning, especially in the Six Flags case. It is indeed a "slippery slope" type of reasoning. Please note that I think both suits/situations were BS and neitehr park should have had to pay.

P.S. I do think that there is a severe liability issue for all thes lap bar rides. Luckily, these thugs that slip out of the restraints, as far as I know, have only injured or killed themselves. What is going to happen the day they slip and fall on the innocent person behind them or on the ground? Does this change anybody's thought pattern? The park's know that these resraints can be manipulated, and they then have to know, or at least should know, that this poses a risk of severe injury and/or death to their innocent customers should these rule breakers fall on the inocent. This is a classic case of negligence by every park currently running any high speed ride in which a thug can self-manipulate him or herself out of the restraints!

Again...I believe that the thug/rule breaker SHOULD be the reponsible party in all these scenerios. Sadly, as the Six Flags case shows, this is not the case. The park is at least partially responsible for thug behaviors that are beyond their control. The park has to anicipate thug behaviors and make efforts to preven thugs from being thugs, ie build a fence...why not put in the overhead restraints???

What is the valid counterargument to my line of reasoning? I don't see it!

If you don't try to defete em, Most work just fine.

There are still a ton of coasters that have no restraints as in bars or belts. I don't see people flying off these things.

Chuck

I'm guessing you have not read the whole thread. I respond with another question. How is there liability with rocks on the ground?

If you don't throw them at moving coaster trains...nobody gets hurt.

Again...I'm in agreement on the Cypress Garden case that it is BS the family is seking money. If anything I would like to see their son serve some jail time once he is stable.

I honestly do not believe coasters need overhead restraints. My point is that the reasoning/line of thinking/justification that many gave to endorse the Six Flags case, is a slippery slope that can easily lead to the examples I've given.

There is also a difference between what I think is correct and reality. The reality is that lap bars are indeed a lawsuit nightmare waiting to happen in today's society. Park's should protect themselves regardless of what coaster fans think. When rocks on the ground/not building a big enough fence/not having security to prevent rock throwers/"insert your favorite excuse here"...cost a park MILLIONS, there is a problem.

Not addressing lap bars that people can manipulate out of seems much more negligent than not preventing a thug rock thrower...no?

---

So can I sue Dodge if I get hurt in my Ram for not wearing my seatbelt?

---

Yes. And it's happened. And Daimler-Chrysler lost at least one multi-million dollar verdict. Not sure of names or anything, but it happened in Tennessee fairly recently and perhaps in other instances with other companies.

---

Seriously, The park should counter sue imediately for bad press resulting from the kids malicious actions.

---

And legal fees incurred.

JR

OH BOY! I can just see now, kids flying off of Triple Hurricane as they take part in a coaster marathon. They're reason will be, "I saw some other kid do it, so I thought I would try.

When operating correctly (as they were in this case and many others) the rides don't cause injury/death, the rider does. That's like saying I can rip apart wiring at work, chew on it, and electricute myself. Since I'm at work, the company is at least partially responsible for my injuries.

Kudos to Dexter for saying: "Every time I take a kid to a park, I take time to read the safety signs with them, and I tell them to listen to the ride opperators."

It's not just with amusement parks, our entire society believes you should be able to make mistake after mistake without suffering the consequenses.

You're never going to be able to make an amusement park ride that will keep the rider safe from himself!*** This post was edited by B&M Guy 3/10/2006 4:52:26 PM ***
*** This post was edited by B&M Guy 3/10/2006 5:14:41 PM ***